Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 23, 2017, 06:00:25 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
100401 Posts in 2360 Topics by 1085 Members
Latest Member: Why We Fight
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 134
3551  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Books on: June 08, 2013, 11:41:37 PM
***Perhaps Hitler only found out about it by reading about it in the papers.....***

Good reversal of the logic of Brock the Terrible.

Perhaps if Hitler had simply fired Himmler and moved Goering over to another branch of the military he would have proven to the world he had no clue.

3552  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: June 08, 2013, 11:34:15 PM
"Reducing a 26 volume tax code to a single page will mostly dis-empower the IRS, no matter what rates we choose"

Also will dis-empower some of the political corruption in DC.

Of course we would still have state taxes, county taxes, and so forth....
3553  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Are you confused? I am on: June 08, 2013, 10:13:45 AM
I tried to look up if non citizens can vote or not.  No succinct answer.  I get this endless diatribe.   So when Brock the Terrible gestures that illegals would have to get in the back of the line for citizenship (and learn English) that does not mean they wouldn't be able to vote for his party effective immediately.   Brock the scheister doesn't tell us that.
3554  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Explaining Hitler on: June 08, 2013, 09:59:12 AM
Is there and explanation?  Good back I read a while back exploring the subject.  I think this is where I first read that there is absolutely nothing in writing that directly links Hitler to Holocaust.

That fact could go into Ripley's believe it or not.  So too (so far) could be linking Obama to the take over of America.  You can fool some of the people all of the time.   Or just pay em off with taxpayer checks.
3555  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Crowdfunding. on: June 08, 2013, 09:45:58 AM
Anyone know if any business actually has been successful over the longer haul with type of investment support?
3556  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: June 08, 2013, 08:57:09 AM

Do you think Rove Bushes and the rest of the Rep elite party are hip to this?   It is a tall task in a country with half who don't pay taxes but this might have the momentum if played right.   But the "leaders" on the right are not as clever and directed as the politburo.   
3557  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rush lead rant on Drudge on: June 08, 2013, 08:54:10 AM

I don't usually post directly off Drudge.  I figure anyone here can simply see it themselves.  But this I feel compelled to post.  No one can say it like Rush.  This is prime example why he is who he is.   I love the comparison of Obama to all these scandals with Hitler and the holocaust.   I totally forgot the fact that there is NO SINGLE DOCUMENT that links Hitler to the holocaust in writing.   There isn't.  No tapes, no signatures.   Yes we have Mein Kampf with his rants about Jews.  But there is nothing about him putting his stamp of approval on the genocide in writing.  Just no proof. 

Rush draws the same parallel to Brock the "terrible".  He is obviously in a huge conspiracy to take over the country by increasing government power.  Yet nothing in writing can be found.  He pretends not to know, to downplay, to blame Bush, to deny.  Yet anyone with a brain can see he is part of this new world order agenda. 

Sad to say our Republican leaders in DC deny it. 

The only part I disagree with is that he does not seem to it if it is private enterprise that is doing this ("Colonel Sanders").  I do.  I don't want Google, Yahoo, Drug companies, pharmacies, or anyone else mining by data without my permission and with no consequences to my privacy.  But back to the Communist takeover of the US.....

******America in the Midst of a Coup d'Etat
June 07, 2013


RUSH: Late yesterday afternoon I was sitting in the library at home, and I was just swamped. It seemed like every 90 seconds somebody needed something, or somebody had a question or somebody had a comment, requiring my response. It was during the period of time that I generally devote to reading my tech blogs, you know, where I abandon all of this and get away from it and start spending time on, quote, unquote, my hobby.

But it was one of those days. I'm sure you have them. They may happen every day, but if I had been watching a TV show I would have hit the pause button every minute to deal with something. It would have taken me two hours yesterday to watch a 40 minute program. So in the midst of all of this, I hear about Prism. Not the NSA sweep of telephone records. In fact, let me start before I heard about Prism. Even before I heard about Prism, I am hearing from the intelligentsia in Washington that there's nothing to be really concerned about here with what we had learned, the NSA demanding and getting every phone record from Verizon. And, by the way, we now know T-Mobile and AT&T have been added to it.

But the intelligent people were saying, "Nothing to see here. The reaction is way overblown." Those of us who think there's something worrisome here are overreacting and we're too oriented in politics. And the mature thinkers that weighed in and sound reason and levelheadedness assured us that there was nothing to fear here because this was just metadata, and in fact this is something we should all be thankful that the government is able to do.

I have to tell you when I'm listening to all the smart people tell me this, my mind is about to explode, and I'm saying, "Do these people not realize what we just learned in the last three weeks?" We got the IRS starting in 2010 taking action to suppress the political involvement and ultimately votes of Tea Party people and conservative Republicans. This regime, this government, on the orders of the highest level. In fact, that investigation is ongoing. We have Fast and Furious. We have Obamacare. The evidence of the totalitarian nature or the authoritarian nature of this administration is on display undeniably every day and yet in the midst of this, "Well, don't go off half cocked on this, Rush. Be very levelheaded. Nothing really to see," as though there's no context here.

It made me once again understand, folks, what you and I are up against here. There are just way too many people -- and I'm talking about on our side -- who do not want to admit what we face, who do not want to engage or admit or whatever what we really face here. It matters. This kind of stuff matters because of who the people doing it happen to be. It's one thing if Colonel Sanders would be collecting all this data, but it's not Colonel Sanders. It's Barack Obama and everybody that works for him, and we know who they are and we know what their goals are. We know what their intentions are.

Folks, here's the thing, I guess, that gets me. I mentioned Herbert Meyer. We interviewed him for the Limbaugh Letter a few short months ago. Herbert Meyer was in the national security apparatus during the Reagan administration. He was a good friend of Ronald Reagan, and was instrumental in establishing Reagan administration policies that brought down the Soviet Union. The big news to him that's really noteworthy, we talked about it, is that he thinks that the world's coming out of poverty. And it is a big story, The Economist in London had a big story on it recently. We mentioned it to you, and it's a great testament to capitalism.

It's not socialism, it's not welfare, it's not compassion and it's not the redistribution of wealth. It's not high taxes that are bringing people out of poverty. It's capitalism, and none other than a leftist publication in London had to admit it. Well, Herb Meyer was the first to sound this notice some months ago. I also mentioned he wrote a piece that currently is in the American Thinker earlier this week, and it had the potential to be controversial because he used Adolf Hitler and Nazism in it, and it was his way of explaining, he made a point in the piece that nowhere, you know, people looking for a smoking gun to nail Obama on all these scandals, Herb says, "Ain't gonna be one."

He said whether you believe it or not, there is not one document linking Adolf Hitler to the holocaust. Adolf Hitler never put it on paper what he intended to do. There is no smoking gun. And yet what happened? We know that the Nazis engaged in the Holocaust. Herb Meyer's point was that the people Hitler hired didn't have to be told. They didn't have to be given instructions. All they had to do was listen to what Hitler was saying. All they had to do was listen to what his objectives were. And he said the same thing's happening here with this administration. He went to great pains to say: I'm not calling this administration a bunch of Nazis. I'm just using this as an illustration. I know people will get my point if I use something this notorious, the Nazi regime.

It's a point that I've made here about the IRS. They say, "Well, you can't link it in to Obama." You don't need to link Obama to it. He hired these people. Lois Lerner and everybody at the IRS who's doing this is doing everything they can to please Obama. There's not gonna be a smoking gun, but you don't need a smoking gun to know where this administration's doing what it's doing.

Obama puts people in positions that mirror him. Eric Holder, you name it, they're doing Obama's bidding. Everybody. Susan Rice and Samantha Power, they are Obama, and there's a context for what's happening. Herbert Meyer, if I may quote him again, asserted that essentially what's taking place in the United States right now is a coup, not a violent coup, and not a million artistic coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it's being done by the Obama administration.

He referred to it as a coup. I don't know if he used the word "peaceful," but clearly there's a coup d'etat going. You know it and I know it. This is what animates us. This is why the Tea Party exists. This country was founded on certain concepts, principles, beliefs -- and they're under assault. Chief among them under assault is the right to privacy, and that's what all this is about. So in the midst of this coup d'etat... I happen to like that formulation.

In seeking ways to persuade, for example, the low-information voters of what's going on, this happens. These are the people continuing to prop Obama up with high approval numbers. The Limbaugh Theorem. How do we reach 'em? How do we tell them? How do we explain what's going on when they have, perhaps, almost an idolatrous relationship with the president? Well, maybe you tell 'em there's a coup going on.

There are people attempting to take over this country and to make it something that it wasn't founded as; turn it into something that it wasn't intended to be. That is happening. You know it and I know it. It's peaceful, nonviolent. The military isn't involved. But nevertheless it's a coup. So in the context of that and the realization that's happening, in the midst of learning that the National Security Agency is literally "Hoovering," vacuuming every telephone record they can, what do we hear?

"Nothing to see here, Rush. Calm down! Slow down, Rush. This is nothing to get concerned about. There's nothing illegal here. The Fourth Amendment's not being violated or breached. This is nothing whatsoever to get concerned about." How can I...? (sigh) I don't know how people can look at this in context and say that. The people doing this are what make it a big deal. Their motives and their intentions and their clear assault on the whole notion of privacy make it interesting.

I'm sorry for the long detour there, but in the midst of being told that I need to be more levelheaded -- and not just me, but all of us who are a little bit concerned here about this Verizon story. We are all being told, "Back off, back off. Nothing to see here. We're not really, really concerned." It was in the midst of that that I heard about Prism. That was a Washington Post story that posted on their website around five or six o'clock yesterday afternoon.

The basic tenet of this story is that somebody in the intelligence community -- NSA, somewhere -- is so concerned over what he's seeing take place that he went to the Washington Post and took with him a little PowerPoint slide presentation and gave it to the Post and their reporters, and they wrote a story up and put it on their website. The story is that practically every major tech group and company in this country is participating with the government in allowing the government access to their servers.

E-mails, texts, phone calls, photographs. Virtually any communication that's taking place via the Apple servers, the Microsoft servers, the Google servers, the NSA is able to look at in real time. This is the story now. The guy that went to the Washington Post said, "It was so scary. They can watch us as we type." The Washington Post published some of the PowerPoint slides. I'm reading this after being told that the Verizon thing is no big deal. "It's nothing to get concerned about.

"Nothing to see here. Don't get too worried about that. Don't go off half cocked!" Here comes the Prism story, and then shortly after the Prism story hits, all of these tech firms start denying it. Apple says, "I never heard of Prism. We don't know what this is about. We never let anybody have access to our servers without a warrant, without a court order. We never!" Google said the same thing. Microsoft said the same thing. Facebook said the same thing.

They're all out there denying it. So I thought, "Did the Washington Post get set up?" I'm asking myself, "Did they get set up by somebody walking in and telling them something that wasn't true?" But then I saw that Prism reported someplace else by this Glenn Greenwald guy at the UK Guardian. So there were two sources for the Prism story, but the tech firms involved continue to deny it. "Nope, it's not happening." Now we've got audio sound bites.

These guys from the tech firms like Greenwald and some of these others, are blaming Bush for all of this, still. Today! Still today, all of this is the fault of Bush. Bush is the guy that got this ball rolling. So there must be something to it if the left is circling the wagons around Obama and trying to make all of us think that all of this is the fault of George W. Bush. I just gotta tell you something, folks. Richard Nixon never even dreamed of this kind of stuff, and yet most people in this country think that Nixon did 10 times as bad as what's happening now.

The fact is, Nixon never dreamed of this.

Whatever he wanted to cook up, he never even came up with this. So there is clearly -- somewhere, somehow, in some form or another -- a coup taking place, and there is an assault on privacy, and there are assaults on people because of their politics and their ideology. It is taking place; it's undeniable. Yet many of the people we would hope would be pushing back against this and doing their best to join us and warning everybody say, "Nothing to see here! Don't get all crazy about this. We must be level headed."


RUSH: So Obama's in California. Why? Fundraising. He's also got a meeting with the Chinese communist premier, but it's fundraising. That's why they go to California. Anyway, he got out there to speak. There was no prompter, and he didn't have any notes, and he just stood there. He didn't know what to do. Honestly, folks. Forty-eight seconds or something. Nothing happened. He finally shouted, "People!" and somebody on his staff brought him his notes. He was clueless.

Now, a lot of people yesterday who were saying, "Rush, Rush, don't get all upset about this. There's nothing to see here in this NSA business and Verizon. Nothing's going on." Look, one of the accusations was that people are just getting upset because it was Obama and just trusting Obama, and it's not reasonable enough to get concerned about this. My point is, speaking about you and me, we're not all stupid out here.

We're not all stupid about this and this is not simply because we don't trust Obama. I don't want my government doing this. I do not want my government preoccupied with paying this close attention to what every citizen is doing every minute of the day. This government's already too big, it's too damn powerful, and it's too unforgiving -- and this doesn't have anything to do with competent intelligence gathering. Throwing wide nets like this is BS. It's assuming way too much to think that this is not a big deal. Left-wing overreaction, my backside.


RUSH: There was a time when the United States government earned the trust of its people. There was a time when most people believed that the United States government was protecting them. There was a time when most people believed that the United States government was spying on the bad guys, that the United States government was in fact earning the trust of the people. But this current data collection, scanning, whatever you want to call it, unfortunately has to be judged in context: the IRS leaks, the now unquestionable, undeniable, admitted-to-it IRS tactic of suppressing the vote of Tea Party conservatives, denying them their First Amendment rights.

The regime and its tricks with the Associated Press and Fox reporter James Rosen, the Benghazi cover-ups, the Fast and Furious operation, suing the state of Arizona for simply endorsing essentially federal immigration law. You can't just try to be the smartest guy in the room and say, "Well, we must be levelheaded about this and understand that this is just metadata." We cannot take the motives and intelligence guided by experience watching this administration over the last four-and-a-half, five years, and what their express purpose is.

I was reminded this morning, we had a sound bite of Maxine Waters back on February 3rd of this year. She was on a TV show, some network, TV One. It was a show hosted by Roland Martin, who used to be, may still be, a personality at CNN. He was interviewing Maxine Waters, and every time she speaks, you know, we have a good laugh about it because clearly she's insane. And we nevertheless will play the sound bites. Her natural existence is such that she gives away the game. She will give away what the administration's all about. She will give away the fact that they want to nationalize all these companies. And she did it again on this Washington Watch with Roland Martin show back on February 3rd of 2013. He said to her, "The reality is like anything else: You'd better get what you can while he's there, because, look, come 2016, that's it."

WATERS: Well, you know, I don't know, and I think some people are missing something here. The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That's going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before.

RUSH: See, she gives it up. Now, I remember playing that sound bite, and we made a big deal about it at the website, Rush 24/7, and we thought, "Well, it's just Maxine being Maxine." But in this case now going back, looking at it in hindsight, what in the world was she talking about? At the time we thought she was talking about all of his high-tech campaign advancements. But maybe she wasn't.

I'll tell you, the New York Times yesterday, this was kind of funny, too, the New York Times decided it was time to get really mad. They wrote an editorial really ripping into Obama over this. They called it: President Obama's Dragnet. The editors at the New York Times were hopping mad, or at least they're pretending to be. And they really got carried away. They had to change their original editorial. They reissued it. The original editorial said: "The administration has now lost all credibility." They changed that in their second issuance to: "The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue." But the point is they were right the first time. I don't know, maybe they don't want shock their readers with so much truth. But they went so far as to say at the New York Times, "Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

Now, keep in mind this was written by people who are the loudest proponents of the expansion of government. These are people who don't believe the government can possibly get too big. It's not possible for it to get too big. It's not possible for the government to get too powerful. It's not possible. And yet they are worried at the New York Times about what is happening to it under the guidance of the presidency and Mr. Obama. What everybody knows and nobody wants to really come to grips with is that we are in the midst of a coup taking place.

Now, I know what's gonna happen. The people on the other side of the glass: "Will you dial that coup talk back?" That's all the headlines are gonna be. I don't care. In fact, it's almost on par with: "I hope he fails." How does that sound now, by the way: "I hope he fails"? I'm constantly looking for ways here to persuade people of what I passionately believe, and I'm not in it to lie to anybody. There's nothing to be gained by lying to you about what I really think. There's nothing to be gained here by lying about facts. There's nothing to be gained here by gaining ground under false pretense.

So if the Constitution exists as it is, the country was founded as it was, and an administration comes along and doesn't like that and is doing everything it can to overturn that Constitution without a convention, doing everything it can to change direction of this country, and what's the word, transform it, what's wrong with calling this a coup? "Mr. Limbaugh, a coup is when rebels join forces with the military and start launching military attacks and shooting people." No, no, no. Not always. And that's my point.

When I was a kid, my dad kept saying, "Son, if things don't change, the Soviets are gonna take over this country without firing a shot." What he was talking about was a coup. Anyway, folks, there's a lot here to be concerned about. And you know it as well as I do. I get a little perplexed when people that I think see the world as I do and are, in my opinion, on my side, want to come along for reasons I can't fathom to excuse things that need not be excused. Now, Obama went out there today, he's in Palm Springs, and he addressed this NSA story. He defended the spy programs as legitimate because Congress has been consistently informed about 'em. He didn't get mad, but he sort of complained about all the hype over the phone data gathering, because it's approved by the FISA court. It's approved by the Congress.

He said (paraphrasing), "Nobody's listening to your phone calls. They're looking at megadata," he meant metadata, "and tracking terrorists. Nobody's listening to content. Modest encroachments on privacy are worth doing. We're gonna have to make some choices as a society. You can't have 100% security and have 100% privacy." This is what he said today out in Palm Springs. This is the guy, don't forget, who got elected convincing people that this kind of stuff was never gonna happen anywhere. This is the guy who got elected mischaracterizing the kind of intelligence gathering that was ongoing with the Bush administration.

This is the guy who got elected president by telling us that what is happening now was never going to happen when he was president. This is a guy who got elected telling us in 2007, 2008 that what's going on now was going on then. Bush was doing this, identical stuff, that's what they're trying to tell us, even now. He got elected warning us that what's happening now was happening in 2007, 2008, and promising us, this was not gonna happen. And everything that was happening in 2007 has only grown. There's only more of it. It's more sweeping than it's ever been.


RUSH: Have we already forgotten what this regime has done to the donors to the Mitt Romney campaign, all of the IRS harassment and audits and attention paid them by the EPA, if necessary? This is clearly an administration that wants to identify its enemies and then take action against them somehow, to intimidate them or what have you. You can't take that context out. The Wall Street Journal has a story here about PRISM. You know, PRISM is a code name, too.

So when these companies like Microsoft and Google and Apple say, "Oh, well, we never heard of it." Well, they may not have heard of it. It may be called something else, and they say, "Well, we don't let anybody have access for our servers without court orders." Well, maybe there have been court orders. If there is a program like this going on, a part of it would have to be that the companies involved would have to be able to deny it. They could not talk about it.

Put it this way: They were sworn to secrecy. They could not broadcast their involvement in it because it's taking place under the guise of national security. Do you realize what a vacuum cleaner that is? I mean, they can Hoover up everything they want under the guise of national security. Anyway, the Wall Street Journal: "US Collects Vast Data Trove -- NSA monitoring includes three phone companies as well as online activity," and then there's this:

"The National Security Agency's monitoring of Americans includes customer records from the three major phone networks as well as emails and Web searches, and the agency also has cataloged credit-card transactions, said people familiar with the agency's activities." Now, would anybody who thought maybe the phone company sweep wasn't any big deal, maybe want to say that cataloging credit card transactions might be news?

I'm just asking.

3558  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Presidential on: June 07, 2013, 11:41:19 PM
too early to ask? grin

Do the revelations about this WH hurt or help the liar in chief in waiting - aka Hillary?

We all know how the lib media and political crowd will go all out to surround her with moats, booby traps, mines, concrete bunkers and a division of lawyers armed with AK 15 assault rifles (it's politically correct to  use these weapons to protect a major liberal  cheesy).
3559  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 07, 2013, 11:05:46 PM
FWIW Levin theorizes that Brock the Great's apt of Rice is not much ado about in your face "Republican boy" as bribe to her to shut her up from turning on the "One"/
3560  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) and the 4th & 9th Amendments on: June 07, 2013, 10:51:50 PM
***I realize that, for many, this order will seem either unsurprising, unalarming, or both. Such is the state of the world–and of the authorities under which the government operates on an increasingly routine basis. But contrast that mentality with the skepticism at the heart of Justice Alito’s opinion for the 5-4 Supreme Court majority in February’s Clapper v. Amnesty International decision, which, in rejecting standing to challenge (admittedly different) FISA-related authorities, dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegations that their communications might be intercepted as purely “speculative.”

Justice Alito’s specific analysis aside, it’s the mindset that I just don’t get. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the normative desirability (and, I dare say, legality) of the degree of governmental surveillance that is now underway. But can reasonable people really continue to disagree that this is the world in which we’re living?***

Appearances can be deceiving.  One can speculate about a lot of things.  Perhaps the "mentality" of the Supremes to dismiss  *this* concern as merely speculative is telling at either their naivete or their wish to look at only hard evidence.  I don't know.

I am one of those who would find this unsurprising while many others don't care because they believe it doesn't adversely affect them.

WE now know various government agencies are collecting reams of data.   We still don't know how much or exactly what or what they are doing with it. 

We also know many upon many liberal advocates from all over are constantly visiting the WH.   We know nothing of what goes on there.  A naïve person (I was one) would have wondered how such a huge conspiracy (soft tyranny) take hold under the radar without people talking.

We have seen other examples of large conspiracies of silence.  Like  Serpico - essentially the entire NYC police force taking bribes or looking the other way.

Like performance enhancing drugs in professional and probably most big time college sports.  Lance Armstorng.  Alex Rodriguez.  Of course they are all doping.   Yet, we only get drips and drabs of the truth because those who are on the inside and know what is going on are keeping quiet.

Same in music industry.   I can way (without proof) that virtually all the lyrics and probably most of what we hear on radio, cable etc is all stolen.   Yet many many people are keeping this quiet or looking the other way.

Same in Wall street insider trading.   To think there *isn't* massive espionage going on would be crazy - not vice a versa.  Too much money involved. 

To think all these hundreds of liberal political activists who work for the government, the media, and private industries are visiting the WH and all this data is not being used against their political adversaries is naïve.  One may still call it speculative - but with much corroborative evidence can reasonable people agree something is rotten in Denmark (DC).

Like the author above I would not dismiss it.   Of course I am not a Supreme Court Justice - I am just another Joe.

3561  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / obesity drugs on: June 06, 2013, 10:17:17 AM
VVUS drug qsymia -  the launch has been a dismal failure for a drug that should be a semi-blockbuster.   It still has to be specially ordered.   It is not perfect.  But it is clearly the most effective weight loss drug (combination) approved by the FDA.   Belviq, Arena's drug - a safer version of desfenfluramine - is probably ok too though it is only one half as effective - maybe a five percent total weight loss.  Qsymia can be up to 10-12 % at maximum dosage.   I own neither stock.  I am contemplating VVUS.  I agree with the major shareholder who is trying to get the entire board of directors replaced.  Or they need to team up with a major pharma that has the skill, talent, sales and marketing prowess to get the drug prescribed more.  Their are two generic alternatives to the qsymia combination which will cut into sales.  The dosages are not equivalent though.
3562  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / For 12 yrs I have been posting how behind the curve government is on: June 06, 2013, 10:07:10 AM

These disclosures are not speculation.  We are already under some surveillance to at least some degree.   By government and private interests.   And in my case by criminals.   Sometimes the entities above overlap and are not separate.  The real world.   If any one thinks Google, MS etc are not keeping data and don't have access to much of what we do and who we are he/she is kidding themselves.

It won't be stopped.  Cannot be.  OTOH we don't want intrusion into our private worlds.  Yet it is happening all the time.  OTOH how in the world can law enforcement have ANY hope of combating this without access to the data.   The problem is what they do with it.    Agencies who are surveillancing for terrorist activity MUST out of any conceivable realm of logical probability come across criminal activity or communications that do not have anything to do with Jihad.  So should this be ignored?  It probably is.  The answer is not simple.

*****WND Exclusive: Now FBI wants back door to all software

Now FBI wants back door to all software

But leading security experts say strategy would help enemies
Published: 15 hours ago
author-imageBob Unruh   About   | Email  | Archive    

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

rss feed Subscribe to feed

Ads by Google

International Backgroundcriminal records,address verifiy, education and employment verify

Printer Friendly
Text smaller
Text bigger


The FBI is unhappy that there are communications technologies that it cannot intercept and wants to require that software makers and communications companies create a back door so they can listen in when they desire.

But a team of technology experts warns the move would hand over to the nation’s enemies abilities they are not capable of developing for themselves.


Ads by Google

Gold Price Falls to $750Why The Gold Price Will Fall to $750. Steps You Need to Take NOW.
Best 2013 Credit CardFind The Best Credit Cards Of 2013. Expert Reviews & Info. Apply Online

The Washington Post reported the issue is being raised by the FBI because “there is currently no way to wiretap some of these communications methods easily, and companies effectively.”

The solution, according to the FBI, is to fine companies when they fail to comply with wiretap orders, essentially requiring all companies to build a back door for wiretap capabilities into all their communications links.

“The importance to us is pretty clear,” FBI general counsel Andrew Weissman said in the report. “We don’t have the ability to go to court and say, ‘We need a court order to effectuate the intercept.’”

But a report by the Center for Democracy & Technology warns of unintended consequences.

“Wiretap functionality allows covert access to communications that can be exploited not only by law enforcement, but by criminals, terrorists, and foreign military and intelligence agencies,” the report said. “Wiretap endpoints will be vulnerable to exploitation and difficult to secure.”

It cited a report called “CALEA II: Risks of Wiretap Modifications to Endpoints.”

The report came just as the U.S. government was caught accessing telephone records for the Associated Press and describing a prominent Fox News journalist as a potential criminal.

It was compiled by high-profile leaders in the field such as Matt Blaze from the University of Pennsylvania, Edward Felten of Princeton, Matthew D. Green of Johns Hopkins and J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan.

The report said there are some drawbacks to expanding wiretap design laws to Internet services.

“Mandating wiretap capabilities in endpoints poses serious security risks,” the report said. “Requiring software vendors to build intercept functionality into their products is unwise and will be ineffective, with the result being serious consequences for the economic well-being and national security of the United States.”

Just what kind of “serious consequences”?

“The FBI’s desire to expand CALEA mandates amounts to developing for our adversaries capabilities that they may not have the competence, access, or resources to develop on their own,” the report said.

CALEA is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which already requires some electronic surveillance possibilities. It’s the plan the FBI wants to expand to all digital forms of communication, including Skype and VoIP services.

The London Daily Mail recently reported that those technologies are hard to track because they convert analogue audio signals into digital data packets, which would have to be retrieved and reassembled.

The team of experts said that besides allowing criminals and terrorists into the networks, the strategy would require software companies to have employees do the wiretapping or give away their company secrets to law enforcement agencies.

“Finally, the wiretap capability that the FBI seeks will be ineffective because it is easily disabled and because knock-off products that lack the wiretap functionality can be readily downloaded from websites abroad. Because many of the tools that people use to communicate are built on open standards and open source software, it will be trivial to remove or disable wiretap functionality,” the report said.

According to the Post report, the draft proposal would let a court levy escalating fines against a company – fines that could double daily.

“This proposal is a non-starter that would drive innovators overseas and cost American jobs,” Greg Nojeim, a senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the Post.

“They might as well call it the Cyber Insecurity and Anti-Employment Act.”*****

3563  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / I believe Bernie Madoff; not had of a SEC division on: June 05, 2013, 02:11:26 PM
*****June 5, 2013, 1:13 p.m. EDT

Madoff, other felons say markets are unfair

By Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Faced with a rash of insider trading in the markets, federal prosecutors and securities regulators in recent years have stepped up efforts to crack down on violations.

But insider trading and market fraud persist, perhaps at epidemic levels. Even though the Securities and Exchange Commission has brought more insider-trading actions in the past three years than in any three-year period in the agency’s history, and even though the U.S. attorney in New York City has convicted 73 people in insider-trading cases since 2009, the crime remains all too common.

 Bernie Madoff.
That’s what MarketWatch found in a series of interviews with people convicted of insider trading and fraud. These felons painted a picture of an unfair market driven by widespread cheating that favors those with privileged information and expensive technology. The cheating also hurts individual investors and retirement savers trying to follow the rules of the road and produces a deeply unfair market environment.

MarketWatch reporters conducted a series of in-depth interviews with ex–investment brokers and others who lost their trading licenses and are either in prison serving multiyear sentences or have done their time in the slammer and now advise others on what not to do.

The results were discouraging.

MarketWatch found that insider trading may be one of the most common crimes on Wall Street and one of the least prosecuted. And that was only the beginning. MarketWatch discovered that the problem for retail investors goes far beyond a failure of regulators to identify insider-trading violations.

The financial criminals we spoke with said that not only do many investors routinely skirt insider-trading laws, but the explosion of computerized high-speed trading in recent years has made the situation even more unfair for the retail investor.

Those retail investors should be careful when relying on audited financial statements because accounting fraud continues unabated, according to one interview. Accounting-fraud cases are complex, and regulators don’t have the resources to enforce the law effectively, according to one felon.

As one fraudster put it to MarketWatch, the Securities and Exchange Commission has roughly 4,000 employees to regulate the financial industry while there are 35,000 cops in New York fighting blue-collar crime.

Insider trading may be one of the most common crimes on Wall Street and one of the least prosecuted.

Bottom line: The markets aren’t fair for retail investors. Regulators at the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment. However, Daniel Hawke, chief of the SEC enforcement division’s market abuse unit, defended the agency’s actions, arguing that it is difficult to identify how much insider trading is going on that regulators aren’t catching.

He said felons behind bars are not going to be credible witnesses because, having been successfully prosecuted, these are people with an ax to grind against the government.

“There was blatant deception implicit in their crimes,” Hawke said. “I don’t think it is credible for someone convicted of insider trading or securities fraud to talk about the ineffectiveness of the government in investigating or prosecuting insider trading.”

Nevertheless, MarketWatch spoke with four ex-brokers, three of whom are in prison with years to go on their sentences and a fourth who is out of prison and advises others about to enter custody.

To get a perspective on the world of accounting fraud, MarketWatch also spoke with a former chief financial officer of a publicly traded company behind a well-known criminal enterprise.

Among them was the poster child for brokers-turned-felons: Bernie Madoff. The perpetrator of a $50 billion Ponzi scheme — the largest in history — explained that retail investors can avoid being scammed by fraudsters like him by putting money in an index fund. (If only he had offered that advice earlier.)

On a smaller scale, MarketWatch spoke with the so-called Bernie Madoff of New Jersey, an ex-broker who is now behind bars for running a Ponzi scheme. He said insider trading is impossible to stop and that retail investors will never be able to compete with the pros unless they splash out for sophisticated, and expensive, trading tools.

An ex–New York stockbroker and hedge-fund manager currently serving 16 years for defrauding investors said insider trading is a black hole that leaves regulators in the dark. A former Wall Street broker who spent 12 years as a broker at big New York investment banks before pleading guilty to wire fraud says no one on Wall Street can be successful without cheating.

For a different perspective MarketWatch turned to a felon and former chief financial officer of Crazy Eddie Inc., a criminal business passing itself off as a New York electronics retailer in the 1980s. This felon explains why he thinks “audit” is a fraudulent term.
Ronald D. Orol is a MarketWatch reporter based in Washington. Follow him on Twitter @rorol.*****

3564  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: should steroid users in Hall of Fame? on: June 05, 2013, 10:47:37 AM
I am surprised MLB is getting serious about this.  If only they did this years ago.
3565  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: June 05, 2013, 10:25:11 AM
Senator Cruz was on Levin basically stating the proposed sell out bill gives Napolitano discretion on enforcement which means essentially no enforcement and a sell out to Democrats.   Even Black groups are against it.  They realize it hurts their workers.
3566  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: June 05, 2013, 10:18:39 AM
WH alters Michelle transcript.   

No surprise.

One can only wonder how many secret emails, white house transcripts of IRS meetings, Benghazi communications are being deleted and hard drives switched or altered as we speak.

Last resort is going to Library of Congress to stuff papers down your underwear..... angry
3567  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: June 03, 2013, 09:17:07 PM
"Shulman himself is under suspicion for his numerous visits to the White House compared to other administration officials"

Aren't there records of any of these meetings?  Minutes?

If yes why can't they be had the same as Nixon tapes?

Too bad we can't water-board...

Issa called Carney a liar.  I am very glad to see the L word is suddenly not so politically incorrect.   Time to call a spade a spade.
3568  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: June 03, 2013, 07:39:37 AM
Time to move on off of Obama and onto Hillary.   wink

So it was the Dem leadership and the media that turned on Hillary in '08 - not her collapse among Black voters.

In any case he is right that those of us on that side "fear" her.   Women still adore her no matter what.   In their minds she is their Abraham Lincoln.
3569  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Austerity or not to austerity? on: June 03, 2013, 07:06:24 AM

moved to the Economics thread on SCH because it deals with econ theory,-- Marc
3570  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / austerity or not to austerity? on: June 02, 2013, 08:45:46 PM
Is Krugman right?   shocked  This is not my field.  I don't know enough to agree or disagree.  I wonder if anyone on the board or if Scott Grannis would care to comment.  An article from a recent Economist edition:

*****The austerity debate

Dismal pugilists

Mudslinging between economists is a distraction from the real issues
 Jun 1st 2013  |From the print edition

THE brawl featuring two economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, and a Keynesian militia led by Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner, refuses to die down. It makes entertaining academic theatre. Sadly, it also distracts from an emerging consensus on how countries should best cope with debt.

In 2010 Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff initiated an influential line of research with a paper that purported to show that growth slowed dramatically when public borrowing rose above 90% of GDP. The work quickly became beloved of austerity-minded politicians in Europe and America. Then in April three economists from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said that unorthodox statistical choices and a spreadsheet blunder had led Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff to exaggerate the drop-off in growth at high debt levels.

Keynesian academics pounced, declaring the intellectual foundation of austerity destroyed. The most damning salvos came from Mr Krugman in an essay saying the 2010 paper had “more immediate influence on public debate than any previous paper in the history of economics”, yet its conclusion and methodology should have been suspect from the start. Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff struck back on May 25th in an open letter to Mr Krugman, decrying his “uncivil behaviour” and his own misstatement (Mr Krugman accused the authors of failing to make public their data; they had. It was their spreadsheet calculations that were not publicly available).

The heat has risen, but the meat of the debate has changed little; if anything, differences may be narrowing. Ms Reinhart and Mr Rogoff now emphasise their less sexy results, that as debt rises growth merely slows, rather than collapses, a point on which many agree. In their letter to Mr Krugman they acknowledge that research is mixed on whether higher debt leads to slow growth or vice versa, long the key criticism of their work. They continue to argue for cautious, proactive debt-reduction. But they say they favour writing down bank debt, slightly higher inflation and “financial repression” (imposing lower real returns on creditors) over immediate austerity.

Those policies are much more to Mr Krugman’s liking. Yet their letter pointedly does not aim to mend fences (it is doubtful Mr Krugman would be interested). And the rhetorical battle obscures important areas of agreement. Austerity that undermines growth does not help; writing down private debt and boosting growth through monetary stimulus and supply-side reform do. That would be a useful message for politicians, but they may struggle to hear it above the din.****
3571  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc) on: June 02, 2013, 07:47:07 PM
If only....... he put his tongue in a condom......... or he stayed away from those Hollywood harlots....

Seriously, it is thought HPV is rarely the cause of head and neck cancer but for him to blame that when he smoked like a heroin addict for decades is absurd.

The statistical odds it was HPV rather than cigarettes is probably on the order hundred thousand to one.   I suppose one could theorize that HPV may have made the toxic effects of the cigarettes even worse but even that is a stretch.

HPV is thought to cause penis cancer, anal cancer, and virtually all cervical cancer.

3572  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: May 31, 2013, 09:01:33 AM
I might add that the NEJM has become a political tool for the politburo health care policy makers at the IVys.  I believe that opposing views are more or less not printed. 

Jama has also succumbed to the political pressure.   In one article that was critical of the state of electronic health records and that so far they have not produced any productivity cost savings gains the author who is a IT doctor noted near the end of the article something to the effect that doctors should stop "whining" about EHR and just be glad they are a part of the "first phase" of the IT revolution in medicine.   This is akin to changing the phrase global warming to climate change.   All of a sudden this is the *first phase*.  Now that this guy's scheme is more or less failure.  Indeed this scumbag should stop whining about us, the people who are forced to put up with this and admit he has not done HIS job.

I was once asked to respond to a pre-published article about how doctors need to do more.  My response was that the author was misguided.  Doctors can be good caring doctors but I don't see why you are calling us to be masochistic saints.  I never got a response and his article to  my knowledge was never published.  In any case the medical community is more a less in a reign of quiet terror trying to comply.   

You think the IRS is tough?
3573  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: May 31, 2013, 02:44:19 AM
Obama’s ‘Chicago Way’  
The administration’s political tactics are straight out of the Daley playbook.  

By John Fund

The scandals swirling around the Obama administration have many journalists scratching their heads as to how “hope and change” seem to have been supplanted by “arrogance and fear.” Perhaps it’s time they revisit one of their original premises about Barack Obama: that he wasn’t influenced by the Chicago Daley machine. You know: the machine that boosted his career and whose protégés — including Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and his wife, Michelle — he brought to Washington with him.

The liberal take on the president was best summed up by Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg, who wrote last year that Obama “somehow passed through Chicago politics without ever developing any real connection to it.” It’s true that Obama initially kept some distance from the machine. But by the time he ran for the Senate in 2004, his main political Sherpas were Axelrod, who was then the chief consultant to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and Jarrett, the mayor’s former deputy chief of staff. As Scott Simon of NPR noted: “While calling for historic change globally, [Obama] has never professed to be a reformer locally.” The Daley machine, which evolved over 60 years from a patronage-rich army of worker bees into a corporate state in which political pull and public-employee unions dominate, has left its imprint on Obama. The machine’s core principle, laid out in an illuminating Chicago Independent Examiner primer on “the Chicago Way,” is that at all times elections are too important to be left to chance. John Kass, the muckraking columnist for the Chicago Tribune who for years has warned that Obama was bringing “the Chicago way” to Washington, sums up his city like this: “Once there were old bosses. Now there are new bosses. And shopkeepers still keep their mouths shut. Tavern owners still keep their mouths shut. Even billionaires keep their mouths shut.”
“We have a sick political culture, and that’s the environment Barack Obama came from,” Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, warned ABC News when Obama ran in 2008. He noted that Obama had “been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state.”

Joel Kotkin, an urban expert who still considers himself a “Kennedy Democrat –– John F. Kennedy,” wrote at Forbes: “Most of us would put up with a bit of corruption and special dealing if the results were strong economic and employment growth. But the bare demographic and economic facts for both Chicago and Illinois reveal a stunning legacy of failure.” Since 2007, the Chicago region has lost more jobs than Detroit has, and more than twice as many as New York. The city’s murder rate is a national disgrace, and its teachers’ union is so powerful that a strike it called last year forced new mayor Rahm Emanuel to back down from his attempt to curb union power.

The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch tags Chicago as the fifth most heavily taxed city in the country: Its sky-high effective sales tax of 9.75 percent makes the tax burden on a family earning $25,000 a year the fourth highest in the country. From 1991, two years after Richard M. Daley first took office as mayor, to 2011, the year Emanuel took the reins, the average debt per Chicagoan grew from $600 to $2,600, an increase of 433 percent. As Dick Simpson, a former reform Chicago alderman who now teaches at the University of Illinois, put it: “There’s a significant downside to authoritarian rule. The city could do much better.”

Conservatives in Chicago, an embattled breed, say the Obama scandals now coming to light — the IRS, the intimidation of journalists, the green-energy boondoggles such as Solyndra — could have been anticipated. “The 2008 Obama campaign perpetrated a fraud that he was a reformer,” says Chris Robling, a former journalist who has served as a Republican election commissioner. “All of the complaints — from the lack of transparency to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s shaking down corporations to promote Obamacare — stem from the culture of the Daley Machine.” For decades, Robling says, Mayor Daley “encouraged” contributions to his favorite charities, with the implicit understanding that the “encourager” controlled the city’s inspectors and regulators. “That sounds an awful lot like what Sebelius was doing to prop up Obamacare,” Robling notes. “Obama’s ideology may come from Saul Alinsky’s acolytes, but his political tactics come straight from the Daley playbook.” Indeed, friends of Bill Daley, Mayor Daley’s brother, say that one reason Bill left his post as Obama’s White House chief of staff after only one year was that even he thought Team Obama was too much “all politics, all of the time” and not enough about governance.

Journalists used to know that presidents are in part a product of their past: where their careers were nurtured and where their politics were shaped. They understood this as a given when it came to Ronald Reagan and California; they basically grasped it about Bill Clinton’s Arkansas, and certainly nailed it on George W. Bush and Texas. But when it came to Barack Obama, all that went out the window. Speaking at the University of Southern California, at a post-2008 conference on the election, Mark Halperin, then of ABC News, said that the media’s treatment of Obama had been “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.” It was “extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage,” he concluded.

That media failure continued throughout Obama’s first term. Perhaps now, as Obama’s “Chicago Way” is coming into focus, the media will want to redeem itself. With Obama, it’s become all too clear: You can take the politician away from the machine, but you can’t take the machine out of the politician.

— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for NRO.
3574  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / from the politburo's health care propaganda outlet the New England Journ. of Med on: May 31, 2013, 02:29:54 AM
Of course all edited by the liberal politburo members of taxachussets.

  Compare the hearty tugging headline with buried deep in the article is the fact that hospitals will have to eat the cost (thus try to recoup somewhere else) by billing everyone else more, or hit the states up for money.

****In 2011 alone, patients and families were spared nearly $150 million in hospital costs.

Hospital emergency room entranceBlend Images | ERproductions Ltd | Blend Images | Getty Images

(HealthDay News) -- An Affordable Care Act provision has shielded thousands of young U.S. adults and their families from millions of dollars in treatment costs for serious medical emergencies, a new study shows.

Starting in September 2010, federal health care reform has required private health plans to cover young adults up to age 25 under their parents' insurance.

More than 22,000 cases of emergency hospital treatment in 2011 involving young adults aged 19 to 25 received coverage under private plans due to the expansion, the study found. The coverage protected patients and parents from an estimated $147 million in hospital charges.

The study was published in the May 30 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Without this provision, they'd be facing hospital bills," said study author Andrew Mulcahy, a health policy researcher at RAND Health, a nonprofit research organization. "Their family might be on the hook for it. If they can't pay, as a last resort, the hospital might have to eat the cost and write it off. Ultimately, in some states, the taxpayers are on the hook because the state chips in and tries to compensate hospitals for care that is uncompensated."

The study also noted that the provision increased health insurance rates about 3 percent among the young adults who sought emergency treatment.

Recent reports have estimated that this particular provision of the Affordable Care Act has led to the coverage of an additional 3.1 million young adults nationally.

In the study, researchers examined details about emergency medical care provided to adults aged 19 to 31 at 392 hospitals from 2008 through 2011.

The study focused on injuries so severe that the young adults would have to receive emergency treatment regardless of insurance coverage, including broken bones and head injuries.

"We were very careful in looking at the most serious conditions -- conditions so serious you have to go to the ER for treatment," Mulcahy said. "This study is about real-world impact and a very direct test of whether the provision is improving financial protection."

Those sorts of injuries accounted for about 6 percent of emergency department visits by young adults, the researchers concluded.

The research team then compared the coverage of those aged 19 to 25 to patients aged 26 to 31, who were unaffected by the new health care law. That way, they could rule out other trends that might have affected the subjects' insurance coverage.

"We found that the provision resulted in increased financial protection for young adults and the hospitals who provided care for these patients," Mulcahy concluded. "We're careful to say it didn't result in additional visits. It's a shift. The provision didn't lead to more people going to the ER. They would have gone without this provision, but they would have been uninsured."

However, the RAND study's focus on nondiscretionary hospital treatment raises more questions than answers, said health economist Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market think tank headquartered in Dallas.

"RAND is touting the financial protection provided by the Affordable Care Act, but then they say only 6 percent of these visits fall under the category of nondiscretionary," Herrick said. "The other 94 percent, to me, is the more interesting story. Are we wasting money on discretionary emergency room treatment? Are they going to the ER for trivial things that would better be left with them covering the cost rather than using their insurance?"

Herrick added that while the study notes in passing a 3 percent increase in insurance rates, it does not go into a more detailed cost-benefit analysis regarding the expanded coverage.

"What is it costing the employers' and parents' health plans, and the young adults?" he asked. "Could the same population have gotten very economical coverage on their own?"

More information

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has more about the Affordable Care Act.

SOURCES: Andrew Mulcahy, health policy researcher, RAND Health; Devon Herrick, health economist and senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis; May 30, 2013, New England Journal of Medicine

Copyright @2013 HealthDay. All Rights Reserved.****


3575  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Republicans spending 40 yrs in the wilderness? on: May 30, 2013, 09:56:40 AM
Ann Romney -> "breech of trust between government and the people".

Let me say this again.   A message that simply points out government is too bid, is too corrupt  is NOT a winning message all unto itself.  It won't win.  This is why Romney did not win.   It can't work.  Not when we have half the nation getting pay checks in one form or the other from the government.   I am not optimistic the Republicans have any chance of figuring this out.    The Romneys would be better off giving donations - not speeches.  And Barbara Bush is correct.   We have had enough Bushes.  And I don't want a DA attorney bully like Cristie.  We need someone inspiring not a large mouth narcissistic bully.
3576  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: May 29, 2013, 10:01:53 PM
Have you tried the lightbulb yet?  I still use halogens.
3577  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cree light bulb at Home Depot on: May 29, 2013, 11:34:45 AM
3578  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, & "discrimination" on: May 29, 2013, 11:24:37 AM
"but the big applause line was that blacks have to work twice as hard"

Being from a socioeconomically lower home, community, poor performing public schools is certainly a disadvantage.  Yet it is for anyone from those situations no matter what race or group they want to categorize themselves as - such as quarter northwest pacific southern Asian, Congolese, Jamaican, mixed decent or whatever.

Didn't stop the SOloDaD@#$%^&*() O'Brien from going to Harvard like the rest of her family and achieving fame and fortune despite no good White people who just want to move on off of the subject of race did it?
3579  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "What would be so terrible about simply admitting Obama is an ideologue" on: May 27, 2013, 03:17:28 PM
A question from Jonah.  He doesn't answer it in this piece.  But there is an answer.  It is the same reason Clinton pretends she is a middle of the roader. 
Apparently the country is not truly ready for a communist.   So he plays the wolf in sheep's clothing.   That coupled with bribing just enough segmentations of the US population with tax money and the left get their agenda through.   I think there is only one way to combat this.  But so far the Roves et al still don't get it.   They simply copy what the Democrats have been doing.   Chasing them down the street like me chasing my dog when he gets off his leash.   

*****Obama, The Non-Ideologue

By  Jonah Goldberg

May 27, 2013 11:05 AM

I know the promotion phase for The Tyranny of Clichés has long since passed. But come on. The core point of my book is that liberals deny they are ideological. Indeed, ideological is a term they reserve for people who disagree with them. Liberalism is just pragmatic and reality-based. To the extent it is even idealistic at all it’s just that it wants to do good and, conveniently enough, whatever liberals want to do this week is the benchmark for what is good.

So here’s E. J. Dionne in what may be as pristine a distillation of liberal conventional wisdom as any I’ve read in a long while. After helpfully reminding the reader that the ranks of Obama’s opponents are teeming with crazy ideologues and racists and dismissing the IRS scandal(s) as wholly unrelated to the conservative brief against Obama, he writes of the president:

He’s an anti-ideological leader in an ideological age, a middle-of-the-road liberal skeptical of the demands placed on a movement leader, a politician often disdainful of the tasks that politics asks him to perform. He wants to invite the nation to reason together with him when nearly half the country thinks his premises and theirs are utterly at odds. Doing so is unlikely to get any easier. But being Barack Obama, he’ll keep trying.

What would be so terrible about simply admitting Obama is an ideologue (just like E. J.)? Making that concession doesn’t require saying Obama is wrong about anything. Dionne et al. could still say Obama is right. They could make the case that his policies are the best. They could still champion — or condemn – his compromises or his “pragmatism” (Ideologues can compromise, too).

But it’s not to be. For liberals, ideology is only something the other guys have. Liberalism is just doing the good and smart thing. If you think the good and smart thing is ideological, that’s just proof you’re a rightwing ideologue (or a racist!). The fact that doing good nearly always requires more government is just a coincidence.

© National Review Online 2013. All Rights Reserved.*****

3580  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: May 27, 2013, 10:51:41 AM
I agree with this:  "Republicans don't have the argument right."
There are some opinions from the Dems and some from the Repubs.  Both are inconsistent and in my view miss the point.

I am close to figuring it out the main concept in my mind though but the consultants are all over the map:

   Repubs have the concepts right.  They just can't be too right like Cruz.  We need more middle of the road candidates who can appeal to groups like Reagan Dems.  Didn't we just have that with Romney and McCain?  The crats claim they come up with more centrist candidates?   Yet Obama is as radical as they come.  Yet he publically claims conservative issues and stances but behind the scenes is radical. 

I dunno.  The DCers still can't figure it out.  Brock pulled in his political machine from Chicago.  Do the repubs have anything equivalent?  (of course more honest would be nice)

****GOP tries to pull off a delicate balancing act

GOP's dilemma: Mitt Romney makes his presidential election concession speech in Boston. 

AP Photo: Rick Wilking, Pool. An election postmortem, commissioned by the Republican Party after Mitt Romney's loss last fall, said the GOP 'is increasingly marginalizing itself.'
 AP  2 hr ago | By Charles Babington   of Associated Press   

The Republican Party wants to keep Tea Party die-hards, evangelicals and pro-lifers happy — but it also wants to win elections.

WASHINGTON — The Republican Party, after losing the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, confronts a dilemma that's easier to describe than solve: How can it broaden its appeal to up-for-grabs voters without alienating its conservative base?

There's no consensus yet on how to do it. With the next election three years away, Republicans are tiptoeing around policy changes even as they size up potential candidates who range from Tea Party heroes to pragmatic governors in Republican- and Democratic-leaning states.

There's a partial road map, but it's more than two decades old, and the other party drafted it. Democrats, sick of losing elections and being tagged as out-of-touch liberals, moved their party toward the center and rallied behind Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in 1992.

Strategists in both parties say Clinton's achievement, however impressive, may look modest compared with what a Republican leader must do to construct a new winning formula, given the nation's changing demographics.

"Our challenge was to get voters back," said Al From, a chief architect of Clinton's political rise. "Their challenge is harder: get voters to come into a new coalition."

That will be complicated, From said, because the Republicans' conservative base "is more demanding and more important" than the Democrats' liberal base.

An array of Republican campaign veterans agree. They say the party's loyal base of conservative activists — including evangelical Christians, anti-tax crusaders and anti-abortion advocates — is too big, ideological and vital to be treated with anything but great care and respect. Republicans will go nowhere if they lose a hard-core conservative every time they pick up a new unaligned voter with a more moderate message.

While they circle that conundrum, Republican leaders hope for a charismatic nominee in the mold of Clinton or Ronald Reagan. They yearn for someone who can appeal to less-ideological voters without prompting conservatives to feel their principles are losing primacy.

Several veteran strategists say Republicans should focus less on modifying their ideas than on improving their campaign mechanics and finding nominees with broader personal appeal than Mitt Romney, John McCain and Bob Dole.

"The foundation of the party as a conservative party hasn't been the principal liability but the principal asset," said GOP campaign strategist Terry Holt.

"Among every voter group, there are people who share our values," Holt said. The key to winning, he said, is to perform better at "micro-targeting" and other techniques designed to find and motivate potential voters.

In that area, he said, "the other party is about half a light-year ahead of us."

Arizona-based Republican consultant Eddie Mahe said finding a charismatic candidate is more important than tweaking policies. Given Americans' low opinion of politics, he said, "to sell the party as a party is nonsensical."

Instead, Mahe said, Republicans must pick a nominee who appeals "to the nonvoters, disinterested voters, the uninformed — whatever you want to call them — who are attracted to a personality, someone they feel good about."

The Republican who comes closest to that description, he said, is Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a Tea Party favorite. But Mahe said he doubts she could win a general election.

Dan Schnur, a former aide to President George W. Bush who teaches political science at the University of Southern California, said, "Parties don't remake parties. Leaders remake parties."

Schnur agrees that Clinton was a gifted politician, but he also had some help and luck, which Republicans will need, too.

Clinton has acknowledged that Gary Hart began tugging the Democratic Party from its liberal and outdated moorings in 1984 and 1988, even if he eventually fell short of the nomination. And a 1992 candidacy by New York Gov. and liberal hero Mario Cuomo might have doomed Clinton's lean-to-the-center strategy.

Republicans "need a Gary Hart before they get a Bill Clinton," Schnur said. And they may have trouble narrowing the ideological field in the 2016 primary and beyond, which could force the eventual nominee to embrace hard-right principles that excite GOP activists but turn off independent voters.

A 97-page postmortem, commissioned by the Republican Party after Romney's loss last fall, said the GOP "is increasingly marginalizing itself, and unless changes are made, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future."

The report emphasized messaging and outreach more than possible changes to policies and proposals. "The party should be proud of its conservative principles," the report said, but it also must be more "welcoming and inclusive" to young voters, minorities and women.

From — who founded the Democratic Leadership Council, a key proponent of Clinton's 1992 agenda — says Republicans are on the wrong track. They must be more open to adjusting their policies, he said, if they want to win presidential elections.

In the early 1990s, From said, "people didn't trust Democrats on the economy, national security, crime, welfare." By pushing welfare reductions, community policing and other new ideas, he said, "we tried to systematically eliminate the obstacles. Republicans have got to do the same thing."

Clinton's 1992 team believed "if you get the argument right, people will vote for us," From said. "Republicans don't have the argument right."

Clinton campaign aide Paul Begala said parties that win presidential elections are "always more mainstream and more unified. Right now, the Republicans are neither."

Begala said liberal activists made only modest complaints about Clinton's shift toward the political center because they were sick of losing elections with nominees such as George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis.

He said Republicans might need one more presidential loss to create a similar level of frustration, which can open the way to pragmatism and moderation. Nominating a Tea Party-leaning "true believer" such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas could do the trick, Begala said.

Holt, who has advised numerous GOP campaigns, said Republicans have already learned the lesson. "The most effective remedy for any party is an overdose of defeat," he said. "We've suffered that."

The Republicans' challenge is spelled out in exit polls from President Barack Obama's win over Romney. Nearly two-thirds of Republican voters labeled themselves as conservatives. But fewer than half of all Democratic voters called themselves liberals.

That indicates Democrats are working with a less-ideological, more flexible base, giving a nominee leeway to embrace issues that might attract non-aligned voters in the general election.

Republicans, on the other hand, depend on a more ideological base. That's one reason party leaders — for now, anyway — talk less of modifying party policies and more of changing mechanics, technology and messaging.

"The brand has suffered," Holt said, "but the values have been very consistent."

Associated Press polling director Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

© 2013 Microsoft Contacts & corrections MSN privacy Legal Ad info Feedback
3581  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Replace climate *change* with climate *science* on: May 26, 2013, 11:31:36 AM
Great post - thanks Doug.
3582  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Morehouse speech - Cal Thomas on: May 26, 2013, 11:26:26 AM
3583  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: May 26, 2013, 10:22:05 AM
Nothing like turning a weekend that is supposed to be reserved to honor our military by turning it to yet another lecture from the ONE.  This is the strategy - triangulate.   He is above and isolated from all the lies, the scandals, the cover-ups, the abuse of his office.   Just sickening folks.   This guy has no shame.   He is a Clinton clone - only more radical:
3584  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / medal of honor recipients - all wars on: May 26, 2013, 10:14:07 AM
3585  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / medal of honor recipients - Vietnam on: May 26, 2013, 10:12:26 AM
3586  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / medal of honor recipients - Korea on: May 26, 2013, 10:11:00 AM
3587  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / medal of honor recipients - WWII on: May 26, 2013, 10:09:42 AM
3588  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / real 54th regimen hero on: May 25, 2013, 10:03:33 PM
July 18th 1863 - Fort Wagner - planting the colors on the fort:
3589  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / memorial day history on: May 25, 2013, 11:19:57 AM

Memorial Day Home Page


Spanish Translation (by Bablefish)   French Translation (by Bablefish)   Hungarian Translation (by Veronika Nagy)

Memorial DayHistory

Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women's groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, "Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping" by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication "To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead" (Source: Duke University's Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920). While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868. It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.

General John A. Logan
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, [LC-B8172- 6403 DLC (b&w film neg.)]
Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war). It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 - 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead: January 19 in Texas, April 26 in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi; May 10 in South Carolina; and June 3 (Jefferson Davis' birthday) in Louisiana and Tennessee.

In 1915, inspired by the poem "In Flanders Fields," Moina Michael replied with her own poem:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

She then conceived of an idea to wear red poppies on Memorial day in honor of those who died serving the nation during war. She was the first to wear one, and sold poppies to her friends and co-workers with the money going to benefit servicemen in need. Later a Madam Guerin from France was visiting the United States and learned of this new custom started by Ms.Michael and when she returned to France, made artificial red poppies to raise money for war orphaned children and widowed women. This tradition spread to other countries. In 1921, the Franco-American Children's League sold poppies nationally to benefit war orphans of France and Belgium. The League disbanded a year later and Madam Guerin approached the VFW for help. Shortly before Memorial Day in 1922 the VFW became the first veterans' organization to nationally sell poppies. Two years later their "Buddy" Poppy program was selling artificial poppies made by disabled veterans. In 1948 the US Post Office honored Ms Michael for her role in founding the National Poppy movement by issuing a red 3 cent postage stamp with her likeness on it.
Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day. While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.

There are a few notable exceptions. Since the late 50's on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3d U.S. Infantry place small American flags at each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery. They then patrol 24 hours a day during the weekend to ensure that each flag remains standing. In 1951, the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts of St. Louis began placing flags on the 150,000 graves at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery as an annual Good Turn, a practice that continues to this day. More recently, beginning in 1998, on the Saturday before the observed day for Memorial Day, the Boys Scouts and Girl Scouts place a candle at each of approximately 15,300 grave sites of soldiers buried at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park on Marye's Heights (the Luminaria Program). And in 2004, Washington D.C. held its first Memorial Day parade in over 60 years.

To help re-educate and remind Americans of the true meaning of Memorial Day, the "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution was passed on Dec 2000 which asks that at 3 p.m. local time, for all Americans "To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to 'Taps."

The Moment of Remembrance is a step in the right direction to returning the meaning back to the day. What is needed is a full return to the original day of observance. Set aside one day out of the year for the nation to get together to remember, reflect and honor those who have given their all in service to their country.

But what may be needed to return the solemn, and even sacred, spirit back to Memorial Day is for a return to its traditional day of observance. Many feel that when Congress made the day into a three-day weekend in with the National Holiday Act of 1971, it made it all the easier for people to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day. As the VFW stated in its 2002 Memorial Day address: "Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public's nonchalant observance of Memorial Day."

On January 19, 1999 Senator Inouye introduced bill S 189 to the Senate which proposes to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day back to May 30th instead of "the last Monday in May". On April 19, 1999 Representative Gibbons introduced the bill to the House (H.R. 1474). The bills were referred the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government Reform.

Petition powered by
To date, there has been no further developments on the bill. Please write your Representative and your Senators, urging them to support these bills. You can also contact Mr. Inouye to let him know of your support.

Visit our Help Restore the Traditional Day of Observance page for more information on this issue, and for more ways you can help.

 To see what day Memorial Day falls on for the next 10 years, visit the Memorial Day Calendar page.

Sources and related links:
•Boalsburg, Pa., Birthplace of Memorial Day
•DC City Pages: History of Memorial Day
•General Logan Biography
•General Logan's General Order 11
•Help Restore the Traditional Day of Observance of Memorial Day
•Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920 from Duke University)
•How to Observe Memorial Day
•Luminaria Program
•Memorial Day Events - Dept of Veterans Affairs
"The Office of Public Affairs provides this page of items that may be of special interest to veterans and customers."
•The Origins of Memorial Day
•Roy, Nuhn. Portfolio: To Honor The Memory of the Departed. American History Illustrated 1982 17[3]: 20-25.

•S 189 and H.R. 1474, bills to restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day.
•"S. Con. Res. 100", resolution for a National Moment of Remembrance.
•Statement on Signing the National Moment of Remembrance Act
•Taps Information
•Today in History: May 30
American Memory project, The Library of Congress
•VFW's "Buddy" Poppy program
•Waterloo, Official Birthplace of Memorial Day


© 1994 - 2009 SUVCW & David Merchant
 Updated 4 April 2009
3590  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: May 25, 2013, 11:17:12 AM
Are journalists more special then everyone else?   I understand their role in keeping our government in check (at the same time as serving as a propaganda wing) yet I dunno...

All this fuss now that it is about them:
3591  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Obesity bias on: May 25, 2013, 10:37:14 AM
I am only surprised the number is not higher.   What the study doesn't address is the prevalence of bias against the obese in the general population.   As for med students I have some points from my experience.

1- obesity treatments were not taught at all other the proverbial "diet and exercise" and simply admonishing a patient for not doing more in this regard.  I can tell you this never works.
Perhaps obesity treatment is taught better now ;  I don't know.
2- obesity treatment are often complicated and are a whole specialty unto itself though not a recognized one by the board of specialties - it should be.   
3- obesity is very difficult to treat - very.  Indeed the medical treatment is almost always with the realistic hope of some sustained weight loss not huge losses from obese to healthy.  I heard one physician who devotes his entire practice say during a lecture, "in my 25 yrs of treating obesity if I have had 2 or 3 patients get from a BMI of 45 (morbid obese - overweight by 100 pounds or more) to a BMI of 25 (top number designated healthy) and keep it off that is a lot".
4- Some experts appear to have thrown in the towel for medical treatment in those patients who are extremely overweight and from the very beginning steer them to bariatric surgery which has a DRAMATICALLY higher success rate.

****Many Medical Students Have Anti-Fat Bias, Study Finds
Healthday  13 hrs ago | By -- Mary Elizabeth Dallas   of HealthDay   

FRIDAY, May 24 (HealthDay News) -- Two out of five medical students have an unconscious bias against obese people, a new study found.

The study authors, from Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, noted the anti-fat stigma is a significant barrier to the treatment of obesity. They concluded that teaching medical students to recognize this bias is necessary to improve care for the millions of Americans who are overweight or obese.

"Bias can affect clinical care and the doctor-patient relationship, and even a patient's willingness or desire to go see their physician, so it is crucial that we try to deal with any bias during medical school," study lead author Dr. David Miller, associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, said in a center news release. "Previous research has shown that on average, physicians have a strong anti-fat bias similar to that of the general population. Doctors are more likely to assume that obese individuals won't follow treatment plans, and they [doctors] are less likely to respect obese patients than average weight patients."

The study, which took place over the course of three years, involved more than 300 third-year medical students. Although all of the students attended a medical school in the southeastern United States from 2008 through 2011, they were originally from many different parts of the United States as well as 12 other countries.

Using a computer program called the Weight Implicit Association Test, the researchers were able to measure the participants' unconscious preferences for fat or thin people. The medical students also completed a survey to determine if they were aware of any weight bias they had.

The study revealed that 39 percent of the medical students had a moderate to strong unconscious anti-fat bias. Seventeen percent had a moderate to strong anti-thin bias. The researchers added that less than 25 percent of the students were aware of their biases.

"Because anti-fat stigma is so prevalent and a significant barrier to the treatment of obesity, teaching medical students to recognize and mitigate this bias is crucial to improving the care for the two-thirds of American adults who are now overweight or obese," Miller said. "Medical schools should address weight bias as part of a comprehensive obesity curriculum."

The study was published online May 23 in the Journal of Academic Medicine.****

3592  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Newt Gingrich on: May 25, 2013, 10:15:44 AM
Newt has some good points as he always does.  Rush was saying more or less the same thing on radio sometime this past week.

Rush more or less said, don't get your hopes up that we can rid ourselves of the tyrant ONE (my name not his for the ONE which is Crafty's name - I just embellished it a bit).   But all that is besides the point anyway as it is not about him but the big government forces of the liberals.


The republicans appear to be taking the scandals opportunity to the first step back to redemption.   But they cannot simply make elections ONLY about the evils of "big government".    We have already been there done that.   What we wind up is praying Rasmussen is right and many Dems don't show up at the polls and we squeeze out another close margin victory.

The party IMHO has to do more to prove we are inclusive to other groups.   The party has to prove that we simply don't replace big gov with private wolfs thieves and scoundrels.   People can see the wealthy getting rich on Wall street.  They can see the bankers came through this without a scratch.   They can see how the rich and powerful have advantages in DC and in the courts the rest of us don't have.

I agree with GM .  There will always be those at the top that take advantage of what is available to them.   What I am asking at least the f' Repubs should at least recognize this.  Instead they ALWAYS look the other way.   If they were to recognize this and at least give some lip service to this point and offer some plan to combat this than maybe just maybe they could be ahead in Pew or CBS or CNN poll for a change.

Maybe even a few more Blacks and Latinos and Asians might be inclined to vote for them.  

I would be curious as to what Doug thinks about my thoughts.   Doug always has great insight from the political point of view. 
3593  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, & "discrimination" on: May 23, 2013, 09:09:16 PM
Doug wrote:
"Blow's real point is that liberals feel quite threatened by the rise of a small number of black conservatives and take every occasion they can to put them down"

Yes.  Doug did you read Obama's speech at Morehouse?  If one reads it one would think parts of it (at least) was written by a Herman Caine or Thomas Sowell.   I don't for the life of me understand why Blacks vote Democratic Party.  Why there own party hijacked by globalist, statist America hating liberals is giving *their* country away.  I could understand when in the past they didn't feel like a full fledged part of our society.  But now they are coming into their own.  And what do they do?  Support the party that is giving it all away.   Lets give it away to all the illegals.  Lets give it away to the EU.  Lets tax all the oil and gas companies in the US and give it to all the poor countries, lets keep spending funny money so we are so much in debt no one will have anything.   If Blacks were upset about not being a full participant in the American Dream then don't vote for a party that is destroying the American Dream. 

Some Blacks did not like Obama's speech.

It was interesting to see some of the criticism of Obama's speech by some Blacks.   They are tired of being lectured about  young Black men not taking responsibility and instead blaming white racism for everything.

Some Blacks have asked so what can the Republican Party do for us?

How about a free country with real equal opportunity and individualism?

Here is his speech:
The Wall Street Journal SubscribeLog InU.S. Edition U.S.
Barack Obama gave the commencement address at Morehouse College, an all-male historically black college in Atlanta, on May 19.

Below is the transcript of the speech:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Hello, Morehouse! (Applause.) Thank you, everybody. Please be seated.


PRESIDENT OBAMA: I love you back. (Laughter.) That is why I am here.

I have to say that it is one of the great honors of my life to be able to address this gathering here today. I want to thank Dr. Wilson for his outstanding leadership, and the Board of Trustees. We have Congressman Cedric Richmond and Sanford Bishop — both proud alumni of this school, as well as Congressman Hank Johnson. And one of my dear friends and a great inspiration to us all — the great John Lewis is here. (Applause.) We have your outstanding Mayor, Mr. Kasim Reed, in the house. (Applause.)

To all the members of the Morehouse family. And most of all, congratulations to this distinguished group of Morehouse Men — the Class of 2013. (Applause.)

I have to say that it’s a little hard to follow — not Dr. Wilson, but a skinny guy with a funny name. (Laughter.) Betsegaw Tadele — he’s going to be doing something.

I also have to say that you all are going to get wet. (Laughter.) And I’d be out there with you if I could. (Laughter.) But Secret Service gets nervous. (Laughter.) So I’m going to have to stay here, dry. (Laughter.) But know that I’m there with you in spirit. (Laughter.)

Some of you are graduating summa cum laude. (Applause.) Some of you are graduating magna cum laude. (Applause.) I know some of you are just graduating, “thank you, Lordy.” (Laughter and applause.) That’s appropriate because it’s a Sunday. (Laughter.)

I see some moms and grandmas here, aunts, in their Sunday best — although they are upset about their hair getting messed up. (Laughter.) Michelle would not be sitting in the rain. (Laughter.) She has taught me about hair. (Laughter.)

I want to congratulate all of you — the parents, the grandparents, the brothers and sisters, the family and friends who supported these young men in so many ways. This is your day, as well. Just think about it — your sons, your brothers, your nephews — they spent the last four years far from home and close to Spelman, and yet they are still here today. (Applause.) So you’ve done something right. Graduates, give a big round of applause to your family for everything that they’ve done for you. (Applause.)

I know that some of you had to wait in long lines to get into today’s ceremony. And I would apologize, but it did not have anything to do with security. Those graduates just wanted you to know what it’s like to register for classes here. (Laughter and applause.) And this time of year brings a different kind of stress — every senior stopping by Gloster Hall over the past week making sure your name was actually on the list of students who met all the graduation requirements. (Applause.) If it wasn’t on the list, you had to figure out why. Was it that library book you lent to that trifling roommate who didn’t return it? (Laughter.) Was it Dr. Johnson’s policy class? (Applause.) Did you get enough Crown Forum credits? (Applause.)

On that last point, I’m going to exercise my power as President to declare this speech sufficient Crown Forum credits for any otherwise eligible student to graduate. That is my graduation gift to you. (Applause.) You have a special dispensation.

Now, graduates, I am humbled to stand here with all of you as an honorary Morehouse Man. (Applause.) I finally made it. (Laughter.) And as I do, I’m mindful of an old saying: “You can always tell a Morehouse Man — (applause) — but you can’t tell him much.” (Applause.) And that makes my task a little more difficult, I suppose. But I think it also reflects the sense of pride that’s always been part of this school’s tradition.

Benjamin Mays, who served as the president of Morehouse for almost 30 years, understood that tradition better than anybody. He said — and I quote — “It will not be sufficient for Morehouse College, for any college, for that matter, to produce clever graduates — but rather honest men, men who can be trusted in public and private life — men who are sensitive to the wrongs, the sufferings, and the injustices of society and who are willing to accept responsibility for correcting (those) ills.”

It was that mission — not just to educate men, but to cultivate good men, strong men, upright men — that brought community leaders together just two years after the end of the Civil War. They assembled a list of 37 men, free blacks and freed slaves, who would make up the first prospective class of what later became Morehouse College. Most of those first students had a desire to become teachers and preachers — to better themselves so they could help others do the same.

A century and a half later, times have changed. But the “Morehouse Mystique” still endures. Some of you probably came here from communities where everybody looked like you. Others may have come here in search of a community. And I suspect that some of you probably felt a little bit of culture shock the first time you came together as a class in King’s Chapel. All of a sudden, you weren’t the only high school sports captain, you weren’t the only student council president. You were suddenly in a group of high achievers, and that meant you were expected to do something more.

That’s the unique sense of purpose that this place has always infused — the conviction that this is a training ground not only for individual success, but for leadership that can change the world.

Dr. King was just 15 years old when he enrolled here at Morehouse. He was an unknown, undersized, unassuming young freshman who lived at home with his parents. And I think it’s fair to say he wasn’t the coolest kid on campus — for the suits he wore, his classmates called him “Tweed.” But his education at Morehouse helped to forge the intellect, the discipline, the compassion, the soul force that would transform America. It was here that he was introduced to the writings of Gandhi and Thoreau, and the theory of civil disobedience. It was here that professors encouraged him to look past the world as it was and fight for the world as it should be. And it was here, at Morehouse, as Dr. King later wrote, where “I realized that nobody — was afraid.”

Not even of some bad weather. I added on that part. (Laughter.) I know it’s wet out there. But Dr. Wilson told me you all had a choice and decided to do it out here anyway. (Applause.) That’s a Morehouse Man talking.

Now, think about it. For black men in the ’40s and the ’50s, the threat of violence, the constant humiliations, large and small, the uncertainty that you could support a family, the gnawing doubts born of the Jim Crow culture that told you every day that somehow you were inferior, the temptation to shrink from the world, to accept your place, to avoid risks, to be afraid — that temptation was necessarily strong.

And yet, here, under the tutelage of men like Dr. Mays, young Martin learned to be unafraid. And he, in turn, taught others to be unafraid. And over time, he taught a nation to be unafraid. And over the last 50 years, thanks to the moral force of Dr. King and a Moses generation that overcame their fear and their cynicism and their despair, barriers have come tumbling down, and new doors of opportunity have swung open, and laws and hearts and minds have been changed to the point where someone who looks just like you can somehow come to serve as President of these United States of America. (Applause.)

So the history we share should give you hope. The future we share should give you hope. You’re graduating into an improving job market. You’re living in a time when advances in technology and communication put the world at your fingertips. Your generation is uniquely poised for success unlike any generation of African Americans that came before it.

But that doesn’t mean we don’t have work — because if we’re honest with ourselves, we know that too few of our brothers have the opportunities that you’ve had here at Morehouse.

In troubled neighborhoods all across this country — many of them heavily African American — too few of our citizens have role models to guide them. Communities just a couple miles from my house in Chicago, communities just a couple miles from here — they’re places where jobs are still too scarce and wages are still too low; where schools are underfunded and violence is pervasive; where too many of our men spend their youth not behind a desk in a classroom, but hanging out on the streets or brooding behind a jail cell.

My job, as President, is to advocate for policies that generate more opportunity for everybody — policies that strengthen the middle class and give more people the chance to climb their way into the middle class. Policies that create more good jobs and reduce poverty, and educate more children, and give more families the security of health care, and protect more of our children from the horrors of gun violence. That’s my job. Those are matters of public policy, and it is important for all of us — black, white and brown — to advocate for an America where everybody has got a fair shot in life. Not just some. Not just a few. (Applause.)

But along with collective responsibilities, we have individual responsibilities. There are some things, as black men, we can only do for ourselves. There are some things, as Morehouse Men, that you are obliged to do for those still left behind. As Morehouse Men, you now wield something even more powerful than the diploma you’re about to collect — and that’s the power of your example.

So what I ask of you today is the same thing I ask of every graduating class I address: Use that power for something larger than yourself. Live up to President Mays’s challenge. Be “sensitive to the wrongs, the sufferings, and the injustices of society.” And be “willing to accept responsibility for correcting (those) ills.”

I know that some of you came to Morehouse from communities where life was about keeping your head down and looking out for yourself. Maybe you feel like you escaped, and now you can take your degree and get that fancy job and the nice house and the nice car — and never look back. And don’t get me wrong — with all those student loans you’ve had to take out, I know you’ve got to earn some money. With doors open to you that your parents and grandparents could not even imagine, no one expects you to take a vow of poverty. But I will say it betrays a poverty of ambition if all you think about is what goods you can buy instead of what good you can do. (Applause.)

So, yes, go get that law degree. But if you do, ask yourself if the only option is to defend the rich and the powerful, or if you can also find some time to defend the powerless. Sure, go get your MBA, or start that business. We need black businesses out there. But ask yourselves what broader purpose your business might serve, in putting people to work, or transforming a neighborhood. The most successful CEOs I know didn’t start out intent just on making money — rather, they had a vision of how their product or service would change things, and the money followed. (Applause.)

Some of you may be headed to medical school to become doctors. But make sure you heal folks in underserved communities who really need it, too. For generations, certain groups in this country — especially African Americans — have been desperate in need of access to quality, affordable health care. And as a society, we’re finally beginning to change that. Those of you who are under the age of 26 already have the option to stay on your parent’s health care plan. But all of you are heading into an economy where many young people expect not only to have multiple jobs, but multiple careers.

So starting October 1st, because of the Affordable Care Act — otherwise known as Obamacare — (applause) — you’ll be able to shop for a quality, affordable plan that’s yours and travels with you — a plan that will insure not only your health, but your dreams if you are sick or get in an accident. But we’re going to need some doctors to make sure it works, too. We’ve got to make sure everybody has good health in this country. It’s not just good for you, it’s good for this country. So you’re going to have to spread the word to your fellow young people.

Which brings me to a second point: Just as Morehouse has taught you to expect more of yourselves, inspire those who look up to you to expect more of themselves. We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices. And I have to say, growing up, I made quite a few myself. Sometimes I wrote off my own failings as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down. I had a tendency sometimes to make excuses for me not doing the right thing. But one of the things that all of you have learned over the last four years is there’s no longer any room for excuses. (Applause.)

I understand there’s a common fraternity creed here at Morehouse: “Excuses are tools of the incompetent used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness.” Well, we’ve got no time for excuses. Not because the bitter legacy of slavery and segregation have vanished entirely; they have not. Not because racism and discrimination no longer exist; we know those are still out there. It’s just that in today’s hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with millions of young people from China and India and Brazil — many of whom started with a whole lot less than all of you did — all of them entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything that you have not earned. (Applause.)

Nobody cares how tough your upbringing was. Nobody cares if you suffered some discrimination. And moreover, you have to remember that whatever you’ve gone through, it pales in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured — and they overcame them. And if they overcame them, you can overcome them, too. (Applause.)

You now hail from a lineage and legacy of immeasurably strong men — men who bore tremendous burdens and still laid the stones for the path on which we now walk. You wear the mantle of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, and Ralph Bunche and Langston Hughes, and George Washington Carver and Ralph Abernathy and Thurgood Marshall, and, yes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. These men were many things to many people. And they knew full well the role that racism played in their lives. But when it came to their own accomplishments and sense of purpose, they had no time for excuses.

Every one of you have a grandma or an uncle or a parent who’s told you that at some point in life, as an African American, you have to work twice as hard as anyone else if you want to get by. I think President Mays put it even better: He said, “Whatever you do, strive to do it so well that no man living and no man dead, and no man yet to be born can do it any better.” (Applause.)

And I promise you, what was needed in Dr. Mays’s time, that spirit of excellence, and hard work, and dedication, and no excuses is needed now more than ever. If you think you can just get over in this economy just because you have a Morehouse degree, you’re in for a rude awakening. But if you stay hungry, if you keep hustling, if you keep on your grind and get other folks to do the same — nobody can stop you. (Applause.)

And when I talk about pursuing excellence and setting an example, I’m not just talking about in your professional life. One of today’s graduates, Frederick Anderson — where’s Frederick? Frederick, right here. (Applause.) I know it’s raining, but I’m going to tell about Frederick. Frederick started his college career in Ohio, only to find out that his high school sweetheart back in Georgia was pregnant. So he came back and enrolled in Morehouse to be closer to her. Pretty soon, helping raise a newborn and working night shifts became too much, so he started taking business classes at a technical college instead — doing everything from delivering newspapers to buffing hospital floors to support his family.

And then he enrolled at Morehouse a second time. But even with a job, he couldn’t keep up with the cost of tuition. So after getting his degree from that technical school, this father of three decided to come back to Morehouse for a third time. (Applause.) As Frederick says, “God has a plan for my life, and He’s not done with me yet.”

And today, Frederick is a family man, and a working man, and a Morehouse Man. (Applause.) And that’s what I’m asking all of you to do: Keep setting an example for what it means to be a man. (Applause.) Be the best husband to your wife, or you’re your boyfriend, or your partner. Be the best father you can be to your children. Because nothing is more important.

I was raised by a heroic single mom, wonderful grandparents — made incredible sacrifices for me. And I know there are moms and grandparents here today who did the same thing for all of you. But I sure wish I had had a father who was not only present, but involved.

Didn’t know my dad. And so my whole life, I’ve tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me. I want to break that cycle where a father is not at home — (applause) — where a father is not helping to raise that son or daughter. I want to be a better father, a better husband, a better man.

It’s hard work that demands your constant attention and frequent sacrifice. And I promise you, Michelle will tell you I’m not perfect. She’s got a long list of my imperfections. (Laughter.) Even now, I’m still practicing, I’m still learning, still getting corrected in terms of how to be a fine husband and a good father. But I will tell you this: Everything else is unfulfilled if we fail at family, if we fail at that responsibility. (Applause.)

I know that when I am on my deathbed someday, I will not be thinking about any particular legislation I passed; I will not be thinking about a policy I promoted; I will not be thinking about the speech I gave, I will not be thinking the Nobel Prize I received. I will be thinking about that walk I took with my daughters. I’ll be thinking about a lazy afternoon with my wife. I’ll be thinking about sitting around the dinner table and seeing them happy and healthy and knowing that they were loved. And I’ll be thinking about whether I did right by all of them.

So be a good role model, set a good example for that young brother coming up. If you know somebody who’s not on point, go back and bring that brother along — those who’ve been left behind, who haven’t had the same opportunities we have — they need to hear from you. You’ve got to be engaged on the barbershops, on the basketball court, at church, spend time and energy and presence to give people opportunities and a chance. Pull them up, expose them, support their dreams. Don’t put them down.

We’ve got to teach them just like what we have to learn, what it means to be a man — to serve your city like Maynard Jackson; to shape the culture like Spike Lee; to be like Chester Davenport, one of the first people to integrate the University of Georgia Law School. When he got there, nobody would sit next to him in class. But Chester didn’t mind. Later on, he said, “It was the thing for me to do. Someone needed to be the first.” And today, Chester is here celebrating his 50th reunion. Where is Chester Davenport? He’s here. (Applause.)

So if you’ve had role models, fathers, brothers like that — thank them today. And if you haven’t, commit yourself to being that man to somebody else.

And finally, as you do these things, do them not just for yourself, but don’t even do them just for the African American community. I want you to set your sights higher. At the turn of the last century, W.E.B. DuBois spoke about the “talented tenth” — a class of highly educated, socially conscious leaders in the black community. But it’s not just the African American community that needs you. The country needs you. The world needs you.

As Morehouse Men, many of you know what it’s like to be an outsider; know what it’s like to be marginalized; know what it’s like to feel the sting of discrimination. And that’s an experience that a lot of Americans share. Hispanic Americans know that feeling when somebody asks them where they come from or tell them to go back. Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love that they share. Muslim Americans feel it when they’re stared at with suspicion because of their faith. Any woman who knows the injustice of earning less pay for doing the same work — she knows what it’s like to be on the outside looking in.

So your experiences give you special insight that today’s leaders need. If you tap into that experience, it should endow you with empathy — the understanding of what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes, to see through their eyes, to know what it’s like when you’re not born on 3rd base, thinking you hit a triple. It should give you the ability to connect. It should give you a sense of compassion and what it means to overcome barriers.

And I will tell you, Class of 2013, whatever success I have achieved, whatever positions of leadership I have held have depended less on Ivy League degrees or SAT scores or GPAs, and have instead been due to that sense of connection and empathy — the special obligation I felt, as a black man like you, to help those who need it most, people who didn’t have the opportunities that I had — because there but for the grace of God, go I — I might have been in their shoes. I might have been in prison. I might have been unemployed. I might not have been able to support a family. And that motivates me. (Applause.)

So it’s up to you to widen your circle of concern — to care about justice for everybody, white, black and brown. Everybody. Not just in your own community, but also across this country and around the world. To make sure everyone has a voice, and everybody gets a seat at the table; that everybody, no matter what you look like or where you come from, what your last name is — it doesn’t matter, everybody gets a chance to walk through those doors of opportunity if they are willing to work hard enough.

When Leland Shelton was four years old — where’s Leland? (Applause.) Stand up, Leland. When Leland Shelton was four years old, social services took him away from his mama, put him in the care of his grandparents. By age 14, he was in the foster care system. Three years after that, Leland enrolled in Morehouse. And today he is graduating Phi Beta Kappa on his way to Harvard Law School. (Applause.) But he’s not stopping there. As a member of the National Foster Care Youth and Alumni Policy Council, he plans to use his law degree to make sure kids like him don’t fall through the cracks. And it won’t matter whether they’re black kids or brown kids or white kids or Native American kids, because he’ll understand what they’re going through. And he’ll be fighting for them. He’ll be in their corner. That’s leadership. That’s a Morehouse Man right there. (Applause.)

That’s what we’ve come to expect from you, Morehouse — a legacy of leaders — not just in our black community, but for the entire American community. To recognize the burdens you carry with you, but to resist the temptation to use them as excuses. To transform the way we think about manhood, and set higher standards for ourselves and for others. To be successful, but also to understand that each of us has responsibilities not just to ourselves, but to one another and to future generations. Men who refuse to be afraid. Men who refuse to be afraid.

Members of the Class of 2013, you are heirs to a great legacy. You have within you that same courage and that same strength, the same resolve as the men who came before you. That’s what being a Morehouse Man is all about. That’s what being an American is all about.

Success may not come quickly or easily. But if you strive to do what’s right, if you work harder and dream bigger, if you set an example in your own lives and do your part to help meet the challenges of our time, then I’m confident that, together, we will continue the never-ending task of perfecting our union.

Congratulations, Class of 2013. God bless you. God bless Morehouse. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Barack Obama, Morehouse
3594  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jason M on Breitbart on: May 23, 2013, 08:39:55 PM
Only  a few months ago the Republicans were on the skids.  No look at the big mouth Dems:
3595  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: May 23, 2013, 09:05:08 AM
Hearing one of the purported excuses of the IRS apologists whether they be media liberals or IRS employees pointing out they deal with thousands of items every day.  Suggesting they are too overwhelmed with data they couldn't possibly have done anything wrong by purposeful design strikes a painful cord with me. 

It is exactly one of the same excuses from the US Copyright office to explain why so many copyright documents disappear.   Oh we have 6000 that come through here a day we couldn't possibly be doing anything with specific ones but we admit we do make *mistakes" amongst the avalanche of papers.   So they easily find take hold what was sent it, then wait for their accomplices to steal it out of our house and then suddenly we hear nothing from the CRO.  When we call, send in writing requests for what we sent them they deny they ever received them.   *we* must be mistaken because they never received anything from us.

Then in the occasional case we do find written evidence we sent them something such as a postal receipt, low and behold, it is miraculously found.  If we don't respond their accomplices in the music business know they are home free with stolen material and we start to hear the dirtballs singing it on the music stations and the yahoo et al announcements of all these new albums.

So when I hear the IRS trying to claim they had no idea or where not purposely looking at conservative groups because of the sea of data,  I in fact know in my heart, they are lying.
3596  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / who owns the auto data on: May 23, 2013, 08:36:25 AM
Well whoever it is, it won't be our own.  It will be who ever has the most money and the most political connections or bribed politicians.

"GM even wants to add popups in your car"

3597  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, & "discrimination" on: May 22, 2013, 11:00:36 PM
Op-Ed Columnist

Blacks, Conservatives and Plantations

Published: May 22, 2013 7 Comments
Why do Republicans keep endorsing the most extreme and hyperbolic African-American voices — those intent on comparing blacks who support the Democratic candidates to slaves? That idea, which only a black person could invoke without being castigated for the flagrant racial overtones, is a trope to which an increasingly homogeneous Republican Party seems to subscribe.

Charles M. Blow

The most recent example of this is E.W. Jackson, who last weekend became the Virginia Republicans’ candidate for lieutenant governor in the state.

In a video posted to YouTube in 2012 titled “Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians,” Jackson says:

“It is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democrat party. They have insulted us, used us and manipulated us. They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies: ‘Unless we support the Democrat party, we will be returned to slavery. We will be robbed of voting rights. The Martin Luther King holiday will be repealed.’ They think we’re stupid and these lies will hold us captive while they violate everything we believe as Christians.”

He continues:

“Shame on us for allowing ourselves to be sold to the highest bidder. We belong to God. Our ancestors were sold against their will centuries ago, but we’re going to the slave market voluntarily today. Yes, it’s just that ugly.”

(Jackson also took swipes at the gay community and compared Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan.)

The Democrat Plantation theology goes something like this: Democrats use the government to addict and incapacitate blacks by giving them free things — welfare, food stamps and the like. This renders blacks dependent on and beholden to that government and the Democratic Party.

This is not completely dissimilar from Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comments, although he never mentioned race:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

Star Parker, a Scripps Howard syndicated columnist, failed Republican Congressional candidate and author of the book “Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can do About It,” argued in an article in 2009 on the conservative Web site Townhall:

“A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mind-sets from ‘How do I take care of myself?’ to ‘What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?’"

Mackubin Thomas Owens, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R. I., put it more bluntly in an editorial on the Ashbrook University Web site in 2002:

“For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation.”

That last bit hints at the other part of Democrat Plantation theology: that black Democrats and white liberals are equal enforcers of enslavement.

A 2010 unsigned article published on the Web site of the conservative weekly Human Events reads:

“If black Americans wish to be Democrats, that is their choice — or is it? Despite the fact that Democrats enjoy the support of over 90% of black America, the other 10%, those who dare to ‘stray from the plantation,’ have been routinely vilified — by other black Americans.”

The article continued:

“The not-so-subtle message? Support liberal dogma — or face social ostracism.”

Dr. Ben Carson, who delivered a speech blasting the president during the National Prayer breakfast this year and quickly became a darling of the right (The Wall Street Journal declared: “Ben Carson for President”), said of white liberals in a radio interview:

“They are the most racist people there are. Because they put you in a little category, a little box. You have to think this way. How could you dare come off the plantation?”

(Carson also got in trouble for comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. He later apologized for those comments, “if anybody was offended.”)

Unfortunately, the runaway slave image among many black Republican politicians is becoming ingrained and conservative audiences are applauding them for it.

Herman Cain, for example, built an entire presidential campaign on slave imagery.

C. Mason Weaver, a radio talk show host, failed Republican Congressional candidate from California and author of the book “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation,” said of President Obama at a 2009 Tea Party rally in Washington: “You thought he was saying was ‘hope and change’; he was saying was ‘ropes and chains,’ not ‘hope and change.’ ” Weaver continued: “Decide today if you’re going to be free or slaves. Decide today if you’re going to be a slave to your master or the master of your own destiny.” Weaver would repeat the “rope and chains” line on Fox and Friends that year.

The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a Tea Party member and occasional Fox News guest, even made a movie called “Runaway Slave,” in which he says that America should “run away from socialism, run from statism, run away from progressivism.”

While these politicians accuse the vast majority of African-Americans of being mindless drones of the Democrats, they are skating dangerously close to — if not beyond — the point where they become conservative caricatures.

The implication that most African-Americans can’t be discerning, that they can’t weigh the pros and cons of political parties and make informed decisions, that they are rendered servile in exchange for social services, is the highest level of insult. And black politicians are the ones Republicans are cheering on as they deliver it.

Now who, exactly, is being used here?
3598  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / EMR - not ready for prime time on: May 22, 2013, 07:53:11 AM

The Obama crony in charge of your medical records
By Michelle Malkin  •  May 22, 2013 06:43 AM

The Obama crony in charge of your medical records
 by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
 Copyright 2013

Who is Judy Faulkner? Chances are, you don’t know her — but her politically connected, taxpayer-subsidized electronic medical records company may very well know you. Top Obama donor and billionaire Faulkner is founder and CEO of Epic Systems, which will soon store almost half of all Americans’ health information.

If the crony odor and the potential for abuse that this “epic” arrangement poses don’t chill your bones, you ain’t paying attention.

As I first noted last year before the IRS witch hunts and DOJ journalist snooping scandals broke out, Obama’s federal electronic medical records (EMR) mandate is government malpractice at work. The stimulus law provided a whopping $19 billion in “incentives” (read: subsidies) to force hospitals and medical professionals into converting from paper to electronic record-keeping systems. Penalties kick in next year for any provider who fails to comply with the one-size-fits-all edict.

Obamacare bureaucrats claimed the government’s EMR mandate would save money and modernize health care. As of December 2012, $4 billion had already gone out to 82,535 professionals and 1,474 hospitals; a total of $6 billion will be doled out by 2016. What have taxpayers and health care consumers received in return from this boondoggle? After hyping the alleged benefits for nearly a decade, the RAND Corporation finally admitted in January that its cost-savings predictions of $81 billion a year — used repeatedly to support the Obama EMR mandate — were, um, grossly overstated.

Among many factors, the researchers blamed “lack of interoperability” of records systems for the failure to bring down costs. And that is a funny thing, because it brings us right back to Faulkner and her well-connected company. You see, Epic Systems — the dominant EMR giant in America — is notorious for its lack of interoperability. Faulkner’s closed-end system represents antiquated, hard drive-dependent software firms that refuse to share data with doctors and hospitals using alternative platforms. Health IT analyst John Moore of Chilmark Research, echoing many industry observers, wrote in April that Epic “will ultimately hinder health care organizations’ ability to rapidly innovate.”

Question: If these subsidized data-sharing systems aren’t built to share data to improve health outcomes, why exactly are we subsidizing them? And what exactly are companies like Faulkner’s doing with this enhanced power to consolidate and control Americans’ private health information? It’s a recipe for exactly the kind of abuse that’s at the heart of the IRS and DOJ scandals.

As I reported previously, a little-noticed HHS Inspector General’s report issued last fall exposed how no one is actually verifying whether the transition from paper to electronic is improving patient outcomes and health services. No one is actually guarding against GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). No one is checking whether recipients of the EMR incentives are receiving money redundantly (e.g., raking in payments when they’ve already converted to electronic records). And no one is actually protecting private data from fraud, theft or exploitation.

But while health IT experts and concerned citizens balk, money talks. Epic employees donated nearly $1 million to political parties and candidates between 1995 and 2012 — 82 percent of it to Democrats. The company’s top 10 PAC recipients are all Democratic or left-wing outfits, from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (nearly $230,000) to the DNC Services Corporation (nearly $175,000) and the America’s Families First Action Fund Democratic super-PAC ($150,000). The New York Times reported in February that Epic and other large firms spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for the Obama EMR “giveaway.”

Brandon Glenn of Medical Economics observes “it’s not a coincidence” that Epic’s sales “have been skyrocketing in recent years, up to $1.2 billion in 2011, double what they were four years prior.”

It’s also no coincidence, as a famous Democratic presidential candidate once railed, that the deepest-pocketed donors “are often granted the greatest access, and access is power in Washington.” That same candidate, Barack Obama, named billionaire Democratic donor Faulkner as the only industry representative on the federal panel overseeing the $19 billion EMR “incentives” program from which her company benefits grandly.

The foxes are guarding the Obamacare henhouse. The IRS vultures are circling overhead. The shadow of tyranny and the stench of corruption are unmistakable. If you see something, say something. BOLO is our watchword.
3599  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants & interesting thought pieces on: May 20, 2013, 07:59:55 AM
On the news is Obama's rant that "blacks have to work twice as hard"

Is this really true?  In the highly competitive field of medicine I am in, the people who get ahead are ALL the ones who work twice as hard.  Be they white black oriental middle eastern indian female male......

3600  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: May 20, 2013, 07:32:59 AM
I read in Louisiana Bobby Jindal's poll ratings tanked because he is trying to replace the state income tax with a state sales tax.

I don't know if it would fly nationally.  

Same problem for a cross the board flat tax.   The same half of the country that pays no tax will immediately and automatically be against this.

OTOH to borrow a re-used quote from Rahm (it was not an original line when he used it), "let no crises go to waste".   *Now* seems like as good time as any to bring up tax reform.

Pessimistically I doubt it will have legs.   But it is worth a try.  

The Repubs have to have a broader more inclusive message about the dangers of the entitlement state and offer the better alternative.   While they are trying they not succeeded so far.  
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 134
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!